Advertisement

In Rare Order, Top Court's "New Lease Of Life" To Woman Who Killed Fiance

The Supreme Court observed that most of the accused were teenagers at that time and had the family not pressured the woman for marriage, the life of an innocent young man would have been saved.

In Rare Order, Top Court's "New Lease Of Life" To Woman Who Killed Fiance
The court said that it wants to give "a new lease of life to the appellants".
  • The Supreme Court stayed the arrest and life sentence of a woman and her boyfriend in a murder case
  • The woman murdered her fiance with the help of her boyfriend in 2003
  • The court called it a case of "misjudged rebellion" and "romantic delusion"
Did our AI summary help?
Let us know.
New Delhi:

In a rare judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday stayed the arrest and life sentence of a girl and her boyfriend while upholding their conviction in her fiance's murder case. The court has also granted them 8 weeks' time to approach the Karnataka Governor for a pardon, calling it a case of "misjudged rebellion" and "romantic delusion".

Shubha Shankar had killed her fiance Girish in 2003 with the help of her boyfriend, Arun and two others (Dinakaran and Venkatesh).

Taking a sympathetic view, the top court observed that most of the accused were teenagers at that time and had the family not pressured the woman for marriage, the life of an innocent young man would have been saved. The court made these observations while dismissing their appeals against the Karnataka High Court judgment.

"Voice of a young, ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind. This, backed by an unholy alliance of a mental rebellion and wild romanticism, led to the tragic murder of an innocent young man, while simultaneously destroying the lives of three others," said the Supreme Court.

The top court said that it wants to view the matter from a different perspective to give "a new lease of life to the appellants who have committed a heinous crime, notwithstanding the availability of other alternative avenues to resolve the problems faced by A-4 (the woman)".

It flagged the emotional and social breakdown that precipitated the crime, calling it a case of misjudged rebellion and romantic delusion. Giving them eight weeks' time to approach Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot for a pardon, urging him to note the circumstances governing the case.

"We would like to facilitate the appellants' right to seek pardon by permitting them to file appropriate petitions before His Excellency the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka. We would only request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust would be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances governing the case," the court said.

"Accordingly, we grant eight weeks' time from the date of this judgment for the appellants to file appropriate petitions seeking to invoke the power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution. Till these petitions are duly considered and decided, the appellants shall not be arrested and their sentence shall remain suspended," it said.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar also made several important observations.

"We do not wish to end our judgment by merely rendering a conviction. We do believe that this Court has a little more role to play. Considering that we started our discussion keeping in mind that this unfortunate event would not have occurred, had the family been more sympathetic in understanding the mental predilection and disposition of the convicted girl ... It is important for us to make some observations." The judgment read.

The bench observed: "Ultimately, the girl was unable to make a decision for herself, despite being an individual who had attained majority. Having said so, we cannot condone her action as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life of a young man. We would only state at this juncture that she was made to commit this offence by adopting the wrong course of action in order to address her problem."

The top court added, "Years have rolled on since the occurrence of the crime, which was 2003. The appellants, who committed the offence with adrenaline pumping in their veins, have now reached middle age. Two out of the four accused persons were teenagers at the time of the occurrence, while the girl had barely crossed that phase. Accused 3 was a man aged 28 years, and was recently married with one child."

The Supreme Court also cited the convicts' conduct in prison, which, it said, was "not adverse".

"Their conduct in the prison is also not adverse. They were not born as criminals, but it was an error of judgment through a dangerous adventure which led to the commission of a heinous crime," the bench observed.

The court also upheld Ms Shankar's separate conviction for destruction of evidence under Section 201.

Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world

Follow us:
Listen to the latest songs, only on JioSaavn.com